don't get me wrong elvis helped further a cause but i think it would have formed on its own without him.....i even enjoy his 50s music,b4 he even began to over rate himself....he was shopped around more than mary kay cosmetics so everyone knew who he was but as for evolving your music he couldn't because he had no control over that...many a career has ended when the music was controlled by the musician....but many flourished.......i guess you can tell i ain't an elvis fan now... :B

I think to downgrade Elvis "because he didn't write his own songs" isn't too fair. The obligation for a rock act to be a self contained unit is thanks to The Beatles, but in that pre-army period Elvis was responsible for so much that we should be able to forgive him that one abberation.

poppy cock kev....the 40s saw many composers writing scores of music and music for each instrument.......most country folks played and writ also alvis was a departure from the norm...

Fair enough. That Elvis didn't/couldn't write his own material is a shame, but I think his other accomplishments overshadow this. I think it's much the same arguement as you get with The Beatles: some other act may have taken rock and roll to the masses, fusing all those elements into something acceptable - but it was Elvis, by crook or by snook, that did.And I'm not sure we can use the "acceptable" thing as a criticism, especially as we're on a site about a band that was positivily embraced by the establishment, and for the most part complied by not rocking the boat. (and in the middle of Revolutionary 1968 it's The Beatles telling the kids everything was "going to be alright" but above all, don't bloody break anything. Meanwhile in 69 Elvis releases In The Ghetto, a fine a piece of social commentary and bucking-the-establishment as you'll find.)

The Beatles 'not rocking the boat' due to their mainstream acceptability isn't really that accurate -- they started off as the darlings of the establishment, but that subsided with the Jesus comments and their openness about their drug use.

Regarding the 27 songs on 1, my presumption is that the album contains both sides of certain double A-side #1s (Come Together/Something, for example), plus the fact that different countries had different #1s: Please Please Me, From Me to You, Ballad of John and Yoko hit #1 in the U.K. but not the U.S., Love Me Do was #1 in the U.S. but not the U.K. I've even read that Ob-La-Di hit #1 in Australia, and Michelle may have topped the charts in France. (I don't own 1 so I'm not sure exactly what it includes and what it doesn't.)

Also, in regards to Elvis's not writing his own songs: that's obviously a huge artistic advantage in favor of the Beatles. I don't necessarily begrudge Elvis for not writing his own stuff, but when you consider that other contemporary artists like Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Bo Diddley, and Carl Perkins, as well as a ton of earlier blues artists, were composers, one has to wonder why Elvis didn't at some point sit down and give songwriting a shot. I think it's because even though he was the King of Rock and Roll, he didn't really feel a deep connection to the music -- his personal favorite songs to sing were gospel songs. And I think he looked at RnR not as a great new musical form but as a vehicle into bigger things: movies and Hollywood stardom. At some point in his career he said that his goal was to be like Dean Martin -- make movies, perform in Vegas, do TV appearances, record albums, etc. His goal wasn't to get to "the Toppermost of the Poppermost."

I think it's kind of interesting that both Elvis and the Beatles sort of took from or were inspired by African American artists and became HUGE while the artists that inspired them hardly made ends meet. It's funny how we needed our music packaged in nice, pretty, wholesome looking packages in order to appreciate it.

Anyway, the only comparison here is that they both created a sort of mania. After that, the Beatles are on an entirely different plane. Elvis didn't write or create anything on his own, he never evolved, and he will never have the influence on other artists in the way the Beatles have had and continue to have.

I may have to be careful how I say this, but, well... [face=Arial]I can't stand Elvis!!!!!!!![/face]Never could, never will. I just don't 'get' it. The first couple of songs, I can see that he was ok looking and a good performer, but further than that, he leaves me cold. I know I wasn't there, which has a lot to do with it, I'm sure, but as Paul McC once said, when Elvis went to the Army, he lost 'something' or his sparkle (can't remember exact quote).I'm sure everyone will say, "Yeah but without him, there'd be no Beatles, cos they were inspired by him", but frankly the Beatles were inspired by so many different and diverse things that I think we can get rid of Elvis, can't we?!! (only joking).

Elvis was a phenomenon. He had a very beautiful rich voice, he was extremely handsome, his songs are really good and he sang well. He introduced his own style. So, a lot of pluses. I like his songs but i am not crazy about him. For me he represents the 50s, The Beatles - the 60s, The Queen - the 70s. Though his and Queen`s eras have ended with their decades, The Beatles` era is a never ending one.

Well, you can or can't like Elvis, but I don't think you can say that he wasn't special. You can't make such a huge impact if you're not special, period.

Agreed. He is one of the highest paid dead celebrities. That has to count for something! I know for sure he beats John Lennon, However I think I read somewhere that Kurt Kobain had beat him. But he was number one for years...